It was not an accident that
four western states were admitted into the Union within the brief period
of three years extending from December, 1816, to December, 1819. Nor was
it entirely due to the skill of politicians that two of these, Illinois
and Indiana, came from the northwest, and two, Mississippi and Alabama,
from the southwest. The four states grew up with the same western movement
of population that followed the War of 1812.

In the South, the conquest
of the Mobile district and the battle of New Orleans determined definitely
that this whole region was to belong to the United States, and that no
foreign power would interfere with the settlers from the eastern states;
while the victory of Jackson over the Creek Indians at Horseshoe Bend, in
what is now eastern Alabama, and the resulting treaty of Fort Jackson in
1814, were a definite indication that the Indians were not to be allowed
to stand in the way of the development of the new region.

Thus encouraged,
immigration poured in steadily in three streams. The rich valley of the
Tennessee River in northern Alabama was settled chiefly from Tennessee,
and, indirectly, through Tennessee, from Virginia and the older states.
The central regions, along the river valleys and in the flat lands, were
settled largely from Georgia, and, through Georgia, from North and South
Carolina, the settlers often making their way through the Creek territory.
The Mobile district and the valleys of the Alabama and the Tombigbee
rivers were settled by people from many different states, some coming even
from New England. One colony, consisting of French exiles, who had
followed the fortunes of Napoleon until his downfall, founded on the
Tombigbee River a town, which they called Demopolis, in what later became
Marengo county.

In 1817 the territory,
which afterwards became the state of Alabama, contained 33,000
inhabitants; in 1818, 67,000; in 1820, 137,000. In 1817, Mississippi state
was organized and the remaining portion of the territory became Alabama
territory. Two years later, March 2, 1819, Congress passed an enabling
act, permitting the people of this territory to form a state government.
The act by which Georgia had in 1802 ceded this land to the national
government provided that it should be subject to the provisions of the
Ordinance of 1787, except as to slavery. The enabling act carried out this
idea, and specified that the state constitution should be in accord with
that ordinance, save as to slavery, and offered to the state certain land
grants for education and funds for internal improvement.

In accordance with this
act, a constitutional convention met at Huntsville on July 5, 1819, and
continued in session until August 2. Huntsville was at that time the most
flourishing town in northern Alabama, and was more distinctly American
than Mobile, the leading town of South Alabama. The convention was an able
body of men. Some of them had already gained political experience in the
older states; many of them were to attain prominence in the later history
of Alabama. It is possible to trace in the document which they drew up the
influence of Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina ideas;
yet the document was not a slavish imitation. It was a good, practical
constitution, and it lasted with several small amendments down to the War
of Secession. It contained a bill of rights, provided for the usual three
departments of government, legislature, governor and courts, and accepted
the conditions and the offers of the enabling act. The most interesting
sections are an elaborate one concerning banks, and a brief one about
slaves, both of which will be referred to later on.

The new constitution was
duly approved, and on Dec. 14, 1819, Alabama became a state in the Union.
The state government had already been formed, the General Assembly had met
at Huntsville on Oct. 25, 1819, and Gov. W. W. Bibb had been inaugurated
on Nov. 9, 1819.

Growth and Development.

The new state, which had
thus been safely launched, was in some respects a frontier community of
pioneers, in other respects it closely resembled the older states farther
east. Mobile, although a small town with scarcely more than 2,000
inhabitants, was more than a hundred years old, and had some of the
conservatism that naturally came from French and Spanish traditions; but
Blakeley, which faced it across the bay, was a new American town,
enterprising and western in its character. So were most of the settlements
that sprang up on the Alabama and the Tombigbee rivers. With the exception
of Mobile, there were few places in Alabama that could boast of being more
than ten or twelve years old. The inhabitants were naturally absorbed in
the practical task of clearing away the forests and conquering the new
soil; but the distance from the older states was so short and the prospect
of rapid growth was so clear, that many of the pioneers came from the
higher class, and gave an eastern tone to the new state.

The chief towns were
Mobile, Hunstville, St. Stephens, Claiborne, Blakeley, Florence, and
Tuscaloosa. None of these had more than 2,000 inhabitants, most of them
considerably less. Montgomery, the future capital of the state, was a mere
village, which had been founded two years before through the joint efforts
of John Falconer, of South Carolina, and Andrew Dexter, of Rhode Island.
With remarkable forethought, Dexter reserved the crest of a commanding
hill for the future state capitol. His dream waited thirty years for its
fulfillment, but in 1846 the state capital was moved from Tuscaloosa, and
in 1847 the building was erected on the hill where he had planned that it
should be. The towns were small, but every one of them expected to be a
city, and lots in them sold at fancy prices.

The state was largely
agricultural, and was to remain so until the war. The chief crop was
cotton, and for transportation the planters depended, in the main, on the
rivers. Of these there were two groups, one centering at Mobile,
consisting of the Alabama and the Tombigbee rivers and their tributaries,
the other consisting of the Tennessee River and its tributaries, which
flowed through the northern part of Alabama into the Ohio. These two
systems lacked common commercial interests, and thoughtful men feared that
the state might ultimately divide into two sections. To overcome this
difficulty, the legislature early planned roads to unite the two sections.
This was the beginning of many plans to connect the northern and the
southern parts of the state, sometimes by canals from the Tennessee to the
Coosa, and later by railroads from Gunter's Landing on the Tennessee to
the Alabama River at Selma or Montgomery.

A great step in the
development of these rivers was taken in 1821, when the first steamboat
made its way from Mobile to Montgomery. The trip took five days, which was
one-sixth of the time required by barges. The entire population of the
little town, Montgomery, turned out to bid it welcome, and well they
might, for it was the beginning of a new method of transportation which
was to make it possible for the towns to become cities.

Although the state was a
new one, with a widely scattered population, dependent almost entirely
upon agriculture, nevertheless, churches, schools, and newspapers, the
three great institutions of civilization, began their existence early.
Naturally, the Roman Catholics took the lead in early Mobile, but
Protestants soon followed, and with the coming of settlers from other
states, the Methodists and the Baptists became the most numerous. Other
denominations followed soon, and in a few years after its admission all
the leading churches were represented on its soil.

In early Mobile, education
had been carried on, partly at least, in connection with the church. In
the other sections of the state private schools sprang up as occasion
permitted. Washington Academy had been founded at St. Stephens in 1811,
and Green Academy at Huntsville in 1812. Planters not infrequently
employed tutors for their children, and sometimes sent their boys to
school in the east. The territorial government had as early as 1814 given
some financial aid to private academies. The enabling act provided for a
state "Seminary of Learning," and set aside certain lands for it and also
for the general cause of education. No regular public school system,
however, was developed until shortly before the war. To carry out the
provisions for a seminary of learning, the University of Alabama was
chartered in 1820, and after some years of planning was opened in 1831.
From that time until the present day it has exercised a strong and healthy
educational influence. When Alabama became a state, newspapers already
existed in Mobile, Huntsville, St. Stephens and Florence. The next year
they were established at Montgomery, Claiborne, Cahawba, and Tuscaloosa.

The conquest of nature
absorbed the inhabitants of the new state so fully that they had little
time for political questions; nor did these for some years press upon them
for solution. The new state began its career in the "Era of Good Feeling"
under President Monroe. The bitter Missouri contest was contemporaneous
with its admission, and during the years of political quiet that followed,
Alabama knew no politics. The population was nearly half slave ; but the
conditions were favorable to slavery, and there was little difference of
opinion about it. Laws were passed to regulate the institution, to prevent
cruelty on the one hand and wholesale emancipation on the other, to
prescribe the status of free negroes, and to maintain order among the
slaves and the free. The question then passed into the background, where
it slumbered, with one or two brief interruptions, until it was called
forth by the great discussions that immediately preceded the war.

The Indian Lands.

The Indian, unlike the
negro, early brought the state into touch with the national government and
its policies. During the War of 1812, while Alabama was still a part of
the Mississippi territory, the Creek Indians had sided with the British,
and had perpetrated the massacre of Fort Mims. They had not been
definitely checked until Andrew Jackson defeated them at Horshoe Bend. The
treaty of Fort Jackson, Aug. 9, 1814, restricted them within definite
limits in the eastern part of the state. In 1816 the Cherokees gave up all
their lands except a small area in the northeast of the state, and the
Chickasaws all save an equally small space in the northwest, and the
Choctaws all except a narrow strip west of the Tombigbee.

This left three-quarters of
the state open to white settlement. But, as the whites poured in, the
demand increased that all Indians should be removed by the national
government. In Georgia the same struggle was going on, and, while the
treaty of 1826 secured for that state practically all that was asked,
Alabama was left without relief. In 1830 the Choctaws gave up their lands,
and soon afterward moved west of the Mississippi. But the Creeks, who held
the largest territory and were directly in the line of settlers coming
from Georgia, still remained, and were at times troublesome. At length in
1832 they consented by the treaty of Dancing Rabbit to give up their lands
and go west. White settlers immediately rushed into the ceded land before
the time fixed by the treaty. Federal troops were ordered to enforce its
terms, and in the attempt in August, 1833, killed a settler named Owens.
Excitement ran high. Governor Gayle and Secretary of War Cass had a sharp
correspondence, and for a time a struggle seemed imminent between the
state and the national governments. Fortunately Francis Scott Key, who was
sent from Washington to arrange the matter, showed great tact and
fair-mindedness, a compromise was reached, and the dispute was settled
amicably.

At length four years later,
in 1837, after a lively fight with the whites at Pea Ridge, the Creeks
finally left their old home and followed the other Indians across the
Mississippi. The Cherokees agreed to leave in 1835, and by 1838 only a few
scattered Indians remained in the state, and the Indian question in
Alabama was settled forever.

Nullification.

Before this problem was
finally disposed of, Alabama was brought face to face with another that
raised serious questions as to the relation of the state to the nation.
The nullification controversy, which raged so hotly in South Carolina,
spread quickly to Alabama, and at one time it seemed possible that the
state would endorse the attitude of South Carolina. Many South
Carolinians, caught by the westward movement, had emigrated to Alabama,
and kept the states in close touch. Moreover the economic conditions that
brought about the trouble in the older state were even more marked in the
newer. Alabama was an agricultural state and had almost no manufactories
at all. Public opinion was therefore naturally opposed to a protective
tariff ; and when South Carolina proposed the remedy of nullification, it
was an open question whether Alabama would endorse its action. The matter
became an issue in the gubernatorial campaign of 1831, John Gayle, who
vigorously condemned nullification, was elected, and the legislature by a
vote of forty-six to sixteen declared against it.

State Banking.

The decade 1830-40 was an
eventful one in the state's history. It not only covered the settlement of
the Indian question and the nullification controversy, but it witnessed
the culmination and the downfall of the State Bank. While Alabama was
still a territory, the need of more money was keenly felt. In addition to
the usual demand for capital to develop the resources of a new country,
the money in circulation was steadily drained eastward by the sale of
government lands. To meet this want, banks were needed which would lend
money on ordinary security, and would increase the circulation by issuing
bank notes. The territorial legislature established several, usually
reserving to the territory an option on a part of the stock. The
constitutional convention recognized the importance of the subject, and
devoted a long section of the constitution to it.

This section authorized the
establishment of a State Bank, safeguarded it as far as was thought wise,
and provided that the state should hold at least two-fifths of the stock.

The legislature of 1823
established "The Bank of the State of Alabama." It was to be controlled by
a president and twelve directors, all appointed by the legislature. It was
to make loans, issue notes, and be the depository of state funds. The Bank
was located at the state capital, which was then Cahawba, but it was moved
to Tuscaloosa, when that town became capital in 1826. Branches were
established in 1832 at Montgomery, Mobile, and Decatur, and in 1835 at
Huntsville. The growth of the bank corresponded with the "Flush Times"
that culminated in 1836, when speculation and wild finance reached their
height. It is hard to apportion to the bank on the one hand and to
circumstances on the other their proper shares of responsibility for what
happened. But it was certainly badly managed, and there were many
accusations of corruption. The appointment of its president and directors
for short terms by the legislature put it in politics, and it was openly
charged with favoritism and graft. For some years it prospered, or seemed
to, and in 1836 the state tax laws were repealed, and the bank was relied
on to defray the state's expenses. Scandals connected with its management,
combined with the panic of 1837, brought it to grief. Legislative
investigation followed, and in 1842-43, under the leadership of Governor
Fitzpatrick and John A. Campbell, the legislature put the whole system in
liquidation. In 1846 a commission was appointed, of which F. S. Lyon was
chairman, to wind up its affairs. Under his able guidance the task was
completed in 1853.

Political Conditions.

With the growth of the
state, participation in national affairs increased. The Indian problem had
been a local one with possibilities of national complications ; the bitter
experience with a state bank was, although scarcely recognized as such at
the time, a phase of the general financial recklessness that swept over
the whole country ; the nullification controversy brought Alabama in touch
with a national question that concerned especially an older state to the
east of them; in 1836 the struggle of Texas for independence aroused a
lively sympathy in a state that was itself largely as yet a land of
pioneers. Mass meetings were held, funds were subscribed, and volunteers
were organized to help the cause. In the massacre at Goliad was a company
of troops organized near Montgomery by Captain Ticknor. They perished
almost to a man.

This growing interest in
public affairs showed itself quickly in a livelier participation in
political life. For years the state had been unquestionably Democratic.
The popularity of Andrew Jackson had been very great ; but with his
retirement in 1837 the Whig party made rapid strides, especially among the
larger planters in the rich farming regions of the central and southern
parts of the state. By 1839 they controlled two of the five congressional
districts, those embracing Tuscaloosa and Mobile; and in a spectacular
campaign in 1840 they came near carrying the state for President Harrison.
So anxious did the Democrats become that they urged the selection of
congressmen on a "General Ticket" by a joint vote of the entire state
instead of by districts. This was done in 1841, but public sentiment
pronounced against it. When compelled to return to the old system, they
made in 1842-43, a still more significant effort to retain their control
by changing the old plan of counting three-fifths of the slaves in
determining the population of the congressional districts. Under the new
law only whites were to be counted. This is interesting as showing not
only the growth of the Whig party, but that its strength at this time lay
largely in the districts where slavery was strongest.

Mexican War and Its
Relation to the Slavery Question.

In 1846 the Texas question
reappeared in the form of a war with Mexico. In spite of memories of
Goliad, men enlisted freely. Some served with troops from other states. An
Alabama regiment was led by Col. John R. Coffey, and a battalion by Maj.
J. J. Seibels. Excitement ran high, and at the close of the war
enthusiastic receptions were given to Generals Shields and Quitman when
they passed through the state. It is difficult to explain with certainty
the great interest that the war aroused among Alabamians. They were
stirred by the love of adventure, by the hope of fame, and by a ready and
not too critical sympathy with their fellow countrymen who were beset by
foreigners. Themselves inhabiting a new and rapidly growing state, they
felt the charm of growth and expansion, and dreamed more or less of new
boundaries for the nation whose political life was now beginning to pulse
vigorously in their veins. Some doubtless foresaw with tolerable clearness
an increase of slave territory and planned therefor.

Whatever may have been
their motive in waging the war, there is no question that it brought them
face to face with the great problem of slavery in the territories, which
involved the question of states rights and was to find its solution only
in civil war. The states rights sentiment was not a new one in Alabama
history. It had been stirred by the Indian question and by the
nullification contest. The followers of John C. Calhoun in Alabama had for
more than ten years been called "States Rights - Men," especially in
opposing the Whig ideas of a National Bank and national aid to internal
improvement. They had found an able leader in Dixon H. Lewis, one of the
most remarkable men of his day. A warm friend of Calhoun and of Yancey, he
is the connecting link between the older South Carolina school of -
political philosophy and the later group that followed the leadership of
the Alabamian, Yancey.

But none of these
discussions brought the question of states rights home to the people of
Alabama so persistently or so effectively as did the territorial problems
that grew directly and indirectly out of the Mexican War. These touched
the slavery question and made it for the first time a great political
issue in the state. The legislature had, it is true, from time to time
passed laws in regard to slaves, for example, in 1827, to check and to
regulate the slave trade, in 1832 to prevent free negroes from coming into
the state, in 1834 to require emancipated slaves to leave the state within
twelve months after emancipation, and at different times to regulate the
patrol system and the management of slaves. But these acts had aroused no
serious differences of opinion, and the anti-slavery movement found little
sympathy in any part of the state. James G. Birney, who at that time lived
at Huntsville, became in the early thirties an agent for the Colonization
Society, and established a few feeble branches of it; but his work met
with a discouraging reception, and he left the state, joined the out and
out abolitionists, and became their candidate for the presidency. In the
main, the abolitionists were regarded as dreamers, and the danger from
them was too remote to create more than a passing wave of excitement.

But with the acquisition of
the lands that came from the Mexican War, the question assumed the new and
more practical form, whether slavery should exist in the territories. This
became a national issue from the moment that Wilmot of Pennsylvania
presented in Congress his well-known proviso excluding it from them. In
Alabama, as in the other Southern states, this called forth a general and
vigorous protest, which found expression in local meetings in many parts
of the state, and culminated in a famous set of resolutions adopted by the
State Democratic convention in Montgomery in 1848. This was the most
advanced position taken by any Southern state at that time and was taken
under the leadership of William L. Yancey, who now succeeded Lewis as the
leader of the "States Rights Men, " and was to be from this time until his
death in 1863 the most conspicuous of all Alabamians. These resolutions
were known far and wide as "The Alabama Platform." They declared that
neither Congress nor a territorial legislature had a right to prohibit
slavery in the new territories which had been acquired by the common
efforts of all the states, that it was the duty of the national government
to protect slave property in this territory, and that the party would
support no man for the presidency who would not indorse these resolutions.

The first part was merely
the logical and final development of Calhoun's philosophy; but the last
resolution was a bold statement of a plan of political action, which is
the keynote of Yancey's policy. The National Democratic convention which
met in Baltimore that year refused to adopt the Alabama Platform; and the
Democrats of the state, with the exception of Yancey and a few of his
followers, supported Cass for the presidency in spite of the fact that he
did not fulfill its requirements. It failed, therefore, at the time, to
achieve its purpose, but it aroused a vigorous discussion in Alabama and
in other states, and was to reappear twelve years later with important
results at the Charleston Convention.
Meanwhile the political pendulum throughout the state swung toward the
conservative side. Yancey was denounced by many as a radical and an
agitator, the compromise measures of 1850 were indorsed by the Whigs and
with some hesitancy by the Democrats, and a Union convention at Montgomery
in 1851 went so far as to deny the right of secession.

By 1852, when Pierce was
elected to the presidency and William R. King, a distinguished Alabamian,
to the vice-presidency, the problems resulting from the Mexican War seemed
to have been permanently solved, and the political excitement subsided.

Industrial and Economic
Questions.

The lull was a brief one,
but it gave the people an opportunity to discuss their economic and
industrial needs, and to push forward plans for cooperation in these
lines. Indeed no student of the early fifties can fail to be impressed
with the beginning made in business development, and to wonder how rapid
its progress would have been, if it had not been interrupted by the War of
Secession. Business had been the absorbing theme during the state's early
years, and it had come near to being the only one during the "flush times"
of 1830-36. A traveler who visited the state in 1833 says: "It was a
subject of wonder and cogitation to me, who had been for many years
constantly taken up with the affairs of government, and the strife of
party politics, to listen to my Montgomery friends talking without ceasing
of cotton, negroes, land and money." Nor had this interest waned greatly
during the fifteen years that followed. The panic of 1837 had seriously
checked the progress of many undertakings. The Mexican War and the
political turmoil that followed it absorbed public interest at the expense
of the discussion of business. But at bottom this still constituted the
chief interest of the state, and by the fifties it had made considerable
progress. The population had grown to nearly 800,000. Farming was still
far the most important industry, and cotton was almost the only crop for
sale. But the amount raised was steadily increasing. At Mobile alone the
cotton receipts had increased from 10,000 bales in 1819, when the state
was admitted, to 237,000 during the flush times of 1836, and to 549,000 in
1852. The means of transportation showed great improvement. Steamboats had
grown in number and rivaled in size and comfort those on the Mississippi.
A definite movement for good roads had been started, and plank roads had
been built with some enthusiasm, but they had proved unsatisfactory and
the movement died. Its loss, however, was more than made good by the
coming of the railroad. In 1831 the Tuscumbia Railroad was begun. It was
to run to Decatur, connecting the two navigable sections of the Tennessee
River which were separated by the Muscle Shoals. Forty-four miles of it
were finished in 1833. In 1834 the Montgomery Railroad was chartered. Its
progress was delayed by the panic, but twelve miles were opened for
business in 1840. About twelve years later it reached West Point, Ga., and
became an important link in the system by which travelers and merchandise
came from the east to Montgomery and thence by steamboats down the Alabama
to Mobile. In 1848 the Mobile and Ohio Railroad was chartered and
thirty-three miles had been built in 1852. Other lines were planned, and
in 1854 the South and North Railroad was incorporated, which was destined
to be the first successful attempt to connect the Tennessee and the
Alabama River valleys, and thereby to unite in a business way the two
sections of the state.

To many men this rapid
development seemed to call for more capital than could be furnished by the
scanty resources of private individuals, and a strong demand arose for
state aid in the building of railroads. Judge L. P. Walker was a leading
advocate of this plan. Others who feared the extension of the powers even
of their own state government earnestly opposed it. They found a vigorous
leader in Governor Winston, who during his two terms, 1853-57, vetoed
thirty-three measures of this kind.

Nor did this demand for an
enlargement of the activities of the state government restrict itself to
such industrial lines as the building of railroads. In 1854 the
legislature passed an act establishing the public school system in the
state, and money was appropriated for it in addition to the fund set aside
by the United States government in the enabling act.

Slavery Controversy.

This prospect of a quiet
industrial development was suddenly swept aside when in 1854 Douglas
brought forward his Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and the struggle for Kansas
began, which in one form or another was to continue until it was settled
by the war. The slavery question was thus once more brought to the front,
and in a definite and dramatic form. Newspapers and speakers discussed the
matter; but the situation demanded action, and Alabama probably did more
than any other Southern state, save Missouri, to beat the Emigrant Aid
Societies at their own game. Several companies of men went from the state,
the largest of which was organized by Jefferson Buford. His purpose is
best seen by reading his card in the newspapers: "I wish to raise three
hundred industrious, sober, discreet, reliable men, capable of bearing
arms, not prone to use them wickedly or unnecessarily, but willing to
protect their section in every real emergency." Border warfare is
demoralizing, and his men may not have lived up to his ideal; but he and
they were in earnest, and seem to have behaved rather better than many
others did under trying conditions.

The old friction over
fugitive slaves and the new terror and indignation that followed John
Brown's raid added fuel to the flame of passion that was fast getting
beyond control, while the Dred Scott decision was felt to be a strong
indorsement of the constitutional position of the States Rights men. In
vain did more conservative men try to stem the current of public opinion
as Whigs, or to direct it to other issues as Americans or Know-Nothings,
or to control it as a wing of the Democratic party under the leadership of
Forsyth, Seibels and Fitzpatrick. The result was inevitable. The current
of events carried the Yancey wing of the Democratic party into control,
and the state's delegates to the national convention in Charleston in 1860
were instructed to insist upon the adoption of the Alabama Platform by
that body, and to withdraw if their request were refused. In vain did
Forsyth protest against the demand for a platform which would "scatter the
Democrats to the winds." "The result must be," he said, "submission to a
Republican administration, or a dissolution of the Union." Alabama had
made up its mind to demand what it considered its full rights under the
constitution and to abide by the consequences, and the legislature passed
an ominous resolution instructing the governor to call a state convention
in case Lincoln should be elected.

Secession.

At Charleston, Yancey in a
speech of wonderful force and eloquence urged the demands of his state;
but his efforts were unsuccessful, and the Alabama delegates and many
others withdrew. The party was hopelessly split and Lincoln was elected.

Now followed the most
intense and earnest discussion as to whether the state should secede.
Those who opposed secession urged that Lincoln's election made no great
change in the situation, that the Supreme Court, which had recently given
the Dred Scott decision, was still to be depended upon, and that Congress
was still safely conservative. What could Lincoln do? Moreover, how would
the situation be improved by secession? Would fugitive slaves be easier to
recover if Ohio and Massachusetts belonged to a foreign government? "Let
us, at any rate," they said, "consult with the other Southern states, and
see whether we can devise some plan to secure our rights in the Union. If
not, then we can secede together."

The advocates of immediate
secession on the other hand, replied that cooperation had been tried
before and had failed, and that the temper of the times made any
compromise impossible, even if it were desirable. Their opinion of the
significance of Lincoln's election was clearly stated by Governor Moore:

"The Republicans have now
succeeded in electing Mr. Lincoln, who is pledged to carry out the
principles of the party that elected him. The course of events shows
clearly that this party will in a short time have a majority in both
branches of Congress. It will be in their power to change the complexion
of the Supreme Court so as to make it harmonize with Congress and the
President. When that party gets possession of all the departments of the
government with the purse and the sword, he must be blind indeed who does
not see that slavery will be excluded from the territories, and other free
states will in hot haste be admitted into the Union until they have a
majority to alter the constitution. Then slavery will be abolished by law
in the states. The state of society that will exist in the Southern states
with four millions of free negroes and their increase turned loose upon
them, I will not discuss-it is too horrible to contemplate."

The struggle over the
question of secession was hard and close. Even when the convention met, no
one knew what its decision would be. In a test vote, the immediate
secessionists won by a majority of fifty-four to forty-five, and the
ordinance of secession was finally adopted on Jan. 11, 1861, by a vote of
sixty-one to thirty-nine. Twenty-four delegates did not sign it.

A newspaper of the time
records that when the result was announced "the rejoicing commenced, and
the people seemed wild with excitement, cannon reverberated through the
city, the various church bells commenced ringing, and shout after shout
might have been heard along the principal streets."

On February 4, less than a
month later, the delegates from the seceding states met in Montgomery, and
organized the Confederate States of America. In the capitol building,
which still stands on the hill reserved for it by Dexter, the Confederate
Congress shaped the destinies of the new republic, and on its portico
Jefferson Davis was inaugurated on February 18, amidst unbounded
enthusiasm. For three months Montgomery continued the capital of the
Confederacy, and Alabama occupied the most conspicuous place on the stage.

Alabama's Part in the
Confederacy.

In the war that followed,
Alabamians played as important a part as in the scenes that ushered it in.
In the cabinet of President Davis served two Alabamians, L. P. Walker, as
secretary of war, and Thomas H. Watts, as attorney-general. Judge John A.
Campbell, who resigned his place on the bench of the Supreme Court of the
United States at the outbreak of the war, became assistant secretary of
war, and, because of his great learning and ability, exercised an
influence with the administration almost equal to that of a member of the
cabinet. William L. Yancey was at once sent abroad as the representative
of the new government to enlist the sympathy and the help of England, and
after his return, made the influence of Alabama strongly felt in the
Confederate Senate.

On the field and on the sea
the state contributed its full share of men and won its full share of
glory. Its population in 1860 contained a little more than half a million
whites, and the number of soldiers that it furnished to the Confederate
cause has been variously estimated at from ninety thousand to one hundred
and thirty thousand. These soldiers were found in every important battle
of the war. They followed many famous commanders who were born in other
states, and served with a fervor that knew no state divisions. They
constituted the troops with which Generals Wheeler and Gordon won their
first fame; and served under General Longstreet, who, although born in
another state, is himself on the official list of generals accredited to
Alabama. Raphael Semmes, a resident of Mobile, commanded the Alabama,
which did more damage to Northern commerce than any other vessel during
the war. In the Confederate army were found six major-generals from
Alabama, and twenty-nine brigadier-generals. From Alabama came the
"Gallant Pelham," the boy artilleryman, of whom General Lee said, "It is
glorious to see such courage in one so young."

While the state did not
become the scene of great campaigns, as did Virginia and Georgia, yet its
soil was often invaded by Union troops, and there was scarcely any section
of it that did not at some time during the war suffer the horrors of
invasion, and that did not at its close show its dreadful effects.

After the battle of Shiloh,
in 1862, the Confederate army moved southward into Mississippi, and the
fertile valley of the Tennessee River in northern Alabama fell into the
hands of the Federal troops. It remained in their possession almost
continuously until the end of the war. In 1863 Streight made a raid
through the hill country of northern Alabama, and was captured after a
brilliant pursuit by Gen. K. B. Forrest. It was an Alabama girl, Emma
Sansom, who, amidst shot and shell, guided Forrest to a ford near Gadsden,
and helped him overtake the Federals.

Raids were made through the
central portion of the state by General Rousseau in 1864, and by General
Wilson in 1865, resulting in the burning of the state university, the
tearing up of railroads and the destruction of much public and private
property at Montgomery, Selma and other places.

The port of Mobile was
blockaded in 1861. In the summer of 1864 Admiral Farragut, in the
desperate battle of Mobile Bay, defeated the Confederate fleet under
Admiral Buchanan. The neighboring forts were captured later after a brave
resistance, and on April 12, 1865, Mobile surrendered.

With few exceptions, the
people of Alabama sustained the cause of the Confederacy to their utmost.
While secession was still a question open for discussion, many opposed it;
but when war came, they followed their state, and gave their lives and
their property freely in behalf of the new government, whose beginning
they had witnessed with high hopes in their own capital city, Montgomery.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.-By far the
most important collection of material for the history of the state is to
be found in the state department of archives and history, which is located
in the capitol at Montgomery. Its director, Dr. Thomas M. Owen, has
accumulated an invaluable collection of manuscripts, official documents,
newspaper files, books, and maps. Some of this material is in course of
publication under the editorship of the director. The files in the office
of the Montgomery Advertiser are also very helpful. The following are the
most important books: Brewer, W.: Alabama: Her History, Resources, War
Record and Public Men (indispensable for reference); DuBose, J. W.: Life
and Times of Yancey (gives full account of the political movements that
led to the War of Secession); Fleming, W. L.: Civil War and Reconstruction
in Alabama (invaluable for the war period); Garrett, William:
Reminiscences of Public Men in Alabama (a rich storehouse of information);
Hodgson, J.: Cradle of the Confederacy (gives full account of the
political movements that led to the war); Owen, T. M.: (ed.) The
Transactions of the Alabama Historical Society (4 vols.); Petrie, George:
(ed.) Studies in Southern and Alabama History (3 vols.); The Memorial
Record of Alabama (2 vols., containing biographical sketches and also
important articles on different phases of the state's history by
specialists) ; Northern Alabama (containing sketches of men and places by
various authors). The earliest historians of the state were A. B. Meek,
the author of Romantic Passages in Southwestern History, and A. J.
Pickett, whose great History of Alabama covers the first year of this
period. Pickett's work has been continued in a brief form by Owen, in his
Annals of Alabama. The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion give a
great deal of material for the war period; articles on Mobile and
Montgomery in Historic Towns of the Southern States, ed. by L. P. Powell,
give some idea of the growth of towns in the early days. The three general
histories of Alabama by W. G. Brown, L. D. Miller, and J. C. DuBose,
intended primarily for school text-books, contain valuable information.

GEORGE PETRIE,
Professor of History and Latin, Alabama Polytechnic Institute.

This comment system requires
you to be logged in through either a Disqus account or an
account you already have with Google, Twitter, Facebook or
Yahoo. In the event you don't have an account with any of these
companies then you can create an account with Disqus. All
comments are moderated so they won't display until the moderator
has approved your comment.